Am. J. Bot. Plant Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (39)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Snow, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Seiler, G. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Snow, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Seiler, G. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Snow, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Seiler, G. J.

American Journal of Botany, Vol 85, 794, Copyright © 1998 by Botanical Society of America, Inc.


POPULATION BIOLOGY

Fecundity, phenology, and seed dormancy of F1 wild-crop hybrids in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus, Asteraceae)

AA Snow, P Moran-Palma, LH Rieseberg, A Wszelaki and GJ Seiler

Crop-to-wild hybridization has the potential to introduce beneficial traits into wild populations. Gene flow from genetically engineered crops, in particular, can transfer genes coding for traits such as resistance to herbicides, insect herbivores, disease, and environmental stress into wild plants. Cultivated sunflower (Helianthus annuus) hybridizes spontaneously with wild/weedy populations (also H. annuus), but little is known about the relative fitness of F1 hybrids. In order to assess the ease with which crop-to-wild introgression can proceed, we compared characteristics of F1 wild-crop progeny with those of purely wild genotypes. Two nontransgenic, cultivated varieties were crossed with wild plants from three different regions-Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota. Seed burial experiments in the region of origin showed that wild-crop seeds had somewhat higher germination rates (less dormancy) than wild seeds from Kansas and North Dakota, while no differences were seen in seeds from Texas. Progeny from each type of cross were grown in outdoor pots in Ohio and in a weedy field in Kansas to quantify lifetime fecundity and flowering phenology. Flowering periods of hybrid and wild progeny overlapped considerably, especially in plants from North Dakota and Texas, suggesting that these hybrids are very likely to backcross with wild plants. In general, hybrid plants had fewer branches, flower heads, and seeds than wild plants, but in two crosses the fecundity of hybrids was not significantly different from that of purely wild plants. In Ohio, wild-crop hybrids from North Dakota appeared to be resistant to a rust that infected 53% of the purely wild progeny, indicating a possible benefit of "traditional" crop genes. In summary, our results suggest that F1 wild-crop hybrids had lower fitness than wild genotypes, especially when grown under favorable conditions, but the F1 barrier to the introgression of crop genes is quite permeable.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Bot.Home page
M. Reagon and A. A. Snow
Cultivated Helianthus annuus (Asteraceae) volunteers as a genetic "bridge" to weedy sunflower populations in North America
Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2006; 93(1): 127 - 133.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
Z. P. SONG, B.-R. LU, B. WANG, and J. K. CHEN
Fitness Estimation through Performance Comparison of F1 Hybrids with their Parental Species Oryza rufipogon and O. sativa
Ann. Bot., March 1, 2004; 93(3): 311 - 316.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Bot.Home page
H. M. Alexander, C. L. Cummings, L. Kahn, and A. A. Snow
Seed size variation and predation of seeds produced by wild and crop-wild sunflowers
Am. J. Botany, April 1, 2001; 88(4): 623 - 627.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.